Hello, * On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +0200 Gábor Lénárt wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:45:09AM -0500, Christopher Pow wrote: > > > Any bug reports and fixes (if any) would be appreciated ;) > > > > It seems to require VICE to be the in-focus-app for it to respond to > > remote monitor queries. Other than that I am able to interact with it > > but it requires manually switching between the two apps. I'll look > > into the remote monitor code. > > I had similar case on Linux, it was while playing with development (svn) > version of vice. However it seems it works better since a while (again, I > only used development versions, not stable ones). It is fixed with some pre-V2.3 version of VICE. Background: In order not to hog the CPU, the remote monitor code tries to give back the CPU to the UI by calling a function to do so (to pump the message queue). Unfortunately, this function blocks until there is a message in the message queue. Now, if there is anything in the queue, the remote monitor code works as expected. What can be in the message queue? For example, (on Windows) a WM_PAINT that tells VICE to redraw the screen. This happens for example if some other Window (the debugger in which you execute WinVICE, for example) is in front of WinVICE, WM_PAINT is generated and everything seems to work fine. That's the reason why I did not notice the problem in the first place. Another option is to move the mouse over the WinVICE window. Or, of course, use a newer version of VICE. IMHO, the behaviour of the called function changed. IIRC, before, it did not block (or my memory is really bad). Of course, one could argue that this is bad design in the first place - and this is correct. However, it's the way the VICE code works ATM. Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://opencbm.sf.net/ http://www.trikaliotis.net/ http://vice-emu.sf.net/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Mon Mar 26 17:53:44 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-03-26 17:53:47 CEST